Inequity in Adoption of Advanced Diabetes Technologies Among Medicare Fee-for-service Beneficiaries.

CONTEXT: Health inequity is often associated with race-ethnicity. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among Medicare beneficiaries with type 1 diabetes (T1D) by race-ethnicity, and to compare diabetes-related technology users with nonusers. DESIGN: The prevalence of technology use (pump, CGM) was determined by race-ethnicity for enrollees in coverage years (CY) 2017-2019 in the Medicare fee-for-service database. Using CY2019 data, technology users were compared with nonusers by race-ethnicity, sex, average age, Medicare eligibility criteria, and visit to an endocrinologist. SETTING: Community. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Beneficiaries with T1D and at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims in a CY. INTERVENTION(S): Pump or CGM therapy, visit to an endocrinologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Diabetes-related technology use by race-ethnicity groups. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2019, CGM and insulin pump use increased among all groups. Prevalence of insulin pump use was < 5% for Black and Other beneficiaries yet increased from 14% to 18% among White beneficiaries. In CY2019, 57% of White patients used a pump compared with 33.1% of Black and 30.3% of Other patients (P < 0.001). Black patients were more likely than White patients to be eligible because of disability/end-stage renal disease or to be Medicare/Medicaid eligible (both P < 0.001), whether using technology or not. Significant race-ethnicity differences (P < 0.001) existed between technology users and nonusers for all evaluated factors except visiting an endocrinologist. CONCLUSIONS: Significant race-ethnicity associated differences existed in T1D management. The gap in diabetic technology adoption between Black and White beneficiaries grew between 2017 and 2019.

C-PEPTIDE AND BETA-CELL AUTOANTIBODY TESTING PRIOR TO INITIATING CONTINUOUS SUBCUTANEOUS INSULIN INFUSION PUMP THERAPY DID NOT IMPROVE UTILIZATION OR MEDICAL COSTS AMONG OLDER ADULTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the C-peptide and beta-cell autoantibody testing required by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on costs/utilization for patients with diabetes mellitus initiating continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used propensity score-matched patients. Analysis 1 compared patients 1-year pre- and 2-years post-CSII adoption who met or did not meet CMS criteria. Analysis 2 compared Medicare Advantage patients using CSII or multiple daily injections (MDI) who did not meet CMS criteria for 1-year pre- and 1-year post-CSII adoption. Analysis 3 extended analysis 2 to 2 years postindex and also included a subset of patients ≥55 years old but not yet in Medicare Advantage. RESULTS: Analysis 1 resulted in significantly slower growth in hospital admissions ( P = .0453) in CSII-treated patients who did not meet the criteria. Analyses 2 and 3 showed numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department (ED) costs for CSII versus MDI patients (both not meeting criteria). Analysis 3 showed significantly slower growth in ED costs and hospital admissions for CSII versus MDI Medicare Advantage patients before propensity matching (both P<.05). In patients ≥55 years old, ED costs grew more slowly for CSII than MDI therapy ( P = .0678). CONCLUSION: Numerically slower growth in hospital admissions was seen for pump adopters who did not meet CMS C-peptide criteria, while medical costs growth was similar. For CSII users who did not meet the CMS criteria, numerically slower growth in inpatient, outpatient, ED costs, and hospital admissions occurred versus MDI. ABBREVIATIONS: CMS = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; DM = diabetes mellitus; DME = durable medical equipment; ED = emergency department; MDI = multiple daily injections (of insulin).

Health Care Costs, Hospital Admissions, and Glycemic Control Using a Standalone, Real-Time, Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Commercially Insured Patients With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing standalone real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have found that rtCGM is associated with lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, yet does not increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia. However, little is known about the relationship between rtCGM and health care costs and utilization. The objective of this study was to compare health care spending, hospital admissions, and A1C levels of patients using rtCGM to that of patients not using rtCGM. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis used a large repository of health plan administrative data to compare average health care costs (excluding durable medical equipment), hospital admissions, and A1C levels of those using rtCGM (N = 1027) versus not using rtCGM (N = 32 583). To control for potentially confounding variables, a propensity score method was used to match patients using rtCGM to those not using rtCGM, based on characteristics such as age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Patients using rtCGM spent an average of approximately $4200 less in total health care costs, when compared to patients not using rtCGM ( P < .05). They also experienced fewer hospital admissions ( P < .05) and lower A1C ( P < .05) during the postindex year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of rtCGM by patients with T1DM is associated with lower health care costs, fewer hospital admissions, and better glycemic control.

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes.

AIMS: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2 DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider. RESULTS: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (-$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM. LIMITATIONS: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause-effect relationships. CONCLUSION: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2-9% regardless of insurance type.